Opinion
October 2, 1967
This court, by order dated February 21, 1966, disbarred respondent from practice as an attorney and counsellor at law upon three separate charges which the court found were sustained by the proof in the record ( Matter of Del Bello, 25 A.D.2d 557). Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals on May 16, 1967 reversed the order of disbarment, dismissed the first of these charges, entitled "9th A", and remanded the matter to this court to impose such discipline as may be deemed appropriate on the remaining two charges, described as "9th B" and "9th C" ( Matter of Del Bello, 19 N.Y.2d 466). Petitioner has now moved for an order disciplining respondent upon charges "9th B" and "9th C"; and respondent has cross-moved for an order reinstating him as an attorney and counsellor at law. Charge "9th B" was that respondent had violated the Canons of Professional Ethics (canon 22) in failing to be candid and fair, in that (1) he had effected his appointment as the committee of an incompetent without revealing to the appointing court (a) that he was the beneficiary under the incompetent's will and (b) that she had conveyed her real property to him subject to a life estate in her favor and (2) he had closed out a Totten trust bank account without obtaining a court order therefor. Charge "9th C" was that respondent had violated the Canons of Professional Ethics (canon 41) based upon the fact that after he became record owner of the incompetent's real estate he failed to disclose to the Welfare Department of the County of Westchester that a mortgage from the incompetent to that department to secure welfare payments had been executed by the incompetent after she had conveyed the property to the respondent. Upon reconsideration of charges "9th B" and "9th C", we are of the opinion that suspension from the practice of law would be an appropriate discipline. However, in view of the passage of time since the order of disbarment was made, we believe that suitable discipline has by now been effected. Accordingly, petitioner's motion to discipline respondent on these two remaining charges is granted to the extent of suspending respondent from the practice of law, nunc pro tunc, from February 21, 1966 to May 16, 1967. Respondent's cross motion for reinstatement is granted to the extent that his application is referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness of the Ninth Judicial District for (1) investigation and hearing as to whether respondent presently possesses the requisite character and fitness for an attorney at law and (2) a report setting forth the committee's findings and recommendations. Pending such report, determination of the cross motion will be held in abeyance. Beldock, P.J., Christ, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.